I think this proposal creates a false sense of security.

ANYTHING you say on the Internet can wind up in Google. If you're not happy about a stranger seeing it, encrypt it; otherwise, you're taking a risk.

I've certainly censored things I'd like to say to the Buffistas, and furthermore said things I should have censored; not because the Buffistas are listening, but because of the strangers who can see it ten years from now.

But the thing is, creating a protected area makes people think they don't run that risk, and they are.

I'm also against it. I can almost sorta see the argument for Bureau, but then when you start getting into threads like Bitches...I've bared my soul in Natter, too. I talk about all sorts of crazy things in the fic threads, some of which could probably get me fired. It's my decision to post those things; it's my responsibility to find my comfort level and deal with any repercussions.

This isn't to say that it doesn't suck if someone I know finds the board and reads things I didn't want them to know, but I don't think registration would be a big impediment to anyone truly determined.

I said it in Bureaublahblah, and I'll say it again here for the record. I'm against the proposal. It won't protect us, may provide the false sense of security Betsy mentions, and certainly will set a bad precedent for the community.

Yup. Locking Bitches? Why? 900 complete strangers can read it. It's the internet, and we're not private. If you're sensitive, don't post it. We can't protect you.

Also, protecting B'cy doesn't stop any of the issues described -- are people really holding back or feeling threatened?

Like they said. If we had more restrictions on membership, I might think it was a good idea, but as it is, anyone can register as many times as they want, so it wouldn't actually keep anyone from reading, except the most casual of lurkers, and we don't care if they read it anyway.

Been only able to visit the right column here the last few days due to craziness that is called life.

My initial instinct when I read the proposal is that the several of the newspaper websites I visit require registration to view their articles and I didn’t have a problem with registering although my participation is only as a reader. I will read the discussion over the next few days. I have a pretty solid notion of the arguments on both sides. Still not sure which way I will go.

I really think the reason this has been proposed is to disprove the theory that we will always vote Yes on anything proposed.

I am opposed enough to this proposal to actually SAY something, which is telling for me! My reasons are those posited above: making threads restricted to registered users would not prevent any of the problems that have arisen, and might inculcate a false sense of security. Further, as a former long-time lurker, I think one lurker mentality needs to be mentioned - I am not a "joiner" so was very reluctant to actually register and include myself in the community even as a non-posting member until I had lurked for long enough to feel that the community was a good one for me. Okay, maybe that means I'm a freak, but I'm a nice, non-harassy freak!

FWIW, I'm certainly not advocating that we close the show threads or natter, or any other thread, for that matter. My proposal is do we want to have the ability to do it if we feel it's necessary?

I agree that there aren't very many teeth. My main concern is with the second incident, not so much to prevent the lurkers from reading what the poster was saying about them, because it wasn't just in Bitches, but that once the lurkers decided to start threatening people, we had no forum to discuss the threats without resorting to backchannel. That cuts a lot of potential viewpoints out of the discussion. The same argument holds true with the discussion we've got going on over in WX Bureaucracy now. There are certain matters that it would be nice to discuss out of the view of prying eyes.

I'm against it. It just doesn't feel right to me--for the reasons others have posted.